I can see that. Did you ever have the chance to see it in Cinerama? I’m not sure I would have loved 2001 quite as much if I didn’t get to see it the way it was intended to be seen.
And it was the first movie with an interstellar travel capable Galactic Patrol. I like FP. I didn’t say it didn’t break new ground - just not as much as the other two. It certainly didn’t have the impact, possibly because it was ahead of its time. But my problem with it is a failure of nerve. I maybe could have done without the comic relief. It’s really a good Star Trek episode 10 years before Star Trek. A good, smart Shakespeare adaptation, but nowhere near the impact of 2001 and Star Wars.
Actually, I saw it 26 times. In the theater. 
Still nothing new. Lucas ripped off everything from the battle sequences to the sidekicks. Yes, it was slickly presented. Yes, it had state-of-the-art Special Effects. Yes, I loved every second of the real Star Wars (Han shot first, dammit!!)
But original? New ground? Please. Lucas should be paying royalties to half the film-makers on the planet. The man has never let an original thought into his head.
I still vote Forbidden Planet.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m betting you didn’t see Star Wars in 1977. It was the first movie that assumed its audience knew the sf conventions…QUOTE]
Well, I did on the first week it came out.
And I can positively state that this movie, while an absolute MAGNIFICENT movie, was NOT sf, and further, did absolutely NOT assume the audience knew of the sf conventions.
Sound in space? Light sabres? No, uh, uh, no way. Nothing whatever to do with sf. It was a space fantasy, kind of like swords & sorcerers. Nothing to do with science fiction or its conventions.
This is not to say that it was crap; far from it. It was space opera and fantasy all rolled into dynamite special effects the like of which was world-caliber, and I loved it.
But sf, it was not.
Just respectfully disagreeing with you, nothing else.
[QUOTE=LiveOnAPlane]
You must not have noticed my first post. I said 2001 was my favorite sf movie, and Star Wars was my favorite scifi movie.
So, Star Wars not sf? I totally agree with you. But it wasn’t any worse than people running around on asteroids without space suits in 1940s space opera.
No, but I’ve seen 70mm screenings several times, and the one thing that still amazes is that the effects are so simple that they hold up incredibly well by contemporary standards. While films in the Star Wars era (non-SE) got more sophisticated, the technology dates quite badly now. But with 2001, even today, the seamless matte lines, model work, and levels of photorealism are still astonishingly effective (the costumes date more than the effects do).
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Uh, yep…and I do totally agree with you.
Guess we need to take this discussion to…huh, what’s the exact opposite of the BBQ Pit?
Hey, in any case, I remain your fan, as always, etc.
Oof. I want to apoogize, as I TOTALLY missed what you wrote in your post. You made a distinction between sf (Science Fiction) and sf (Sci-Fi).
It’s a fine, fine, distinction, but it IS one I understand and appreciate. You are truly a very discerning individual.
We need not discuss the nuances of this, as it is a very fuzzy and often contentious debate. But, I see that we are on the same wavelength on this issue, for whatever that’s worth.
I notice no one has mentioned Plan 9 from Outer Space or Santa vs. the Martians. I wonder why that is.
I agree with **The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, and 2001… and somehow, for me at least, Blade Runner **doesn’t quite make the short list. Whereas one that has not been mentioned, sort of does.
The Fifth Element
Yes, there were a lot of things wrong with it, but it is one of only a handful of films I will watch regularly. If nothing else, you’ve got to admit it sure was better than Willis’ Astronaut Farmer and Armageddon.
*Solyaris *
It’s funny. After the remake of Solaris came out, there was a review in F&SF. The reviewer quoted from the review printed in F&SF of the original Solaris. Neither reviewer liked the movie they reviewed.
A Boy and his Dog and On the Beach.
Well, it’s not for everyone. There is a decided absence of car chases. But it’s in my personal top ten.
I’ve become convinced that “Minority Report” is probably the most underrated science fiction movie ever made. It’s a phenomenally underrated, and mostly misunderstood, film.
I wouldn’t say it’s the best, but it’s in the top ten.
For best I guess… gosh, I dunno.
Science fiction can generally be defined two different ways;
-
Fiction taking place in a setting where scientific understanding and application is vastly more advanced in most or all respects than it is today. This would include such films as “Star Wars,” “Firefly,” or “Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.”
-
Fiction that examines themes, usually the nature of humanity, by placing its characters in positions where their behaviours are measured against some scientific advance or state that is more advanced than what we have today. A good, and already cited, example is “Blade Runner,” where the question of what it is to be human is examined by introducing the concept of artificial humans.
Movies of type 2 are usually by necessity also movies of type 1, as Blade Runner is. “A.I.” is a similar film. A different film, but also a type 2, is the aforementioned “12 Monkeys.”
On the other hand, “Star Wars” really is just a type 1, or as some people call it, a space opera. You could set “Star Wars” in the Old West and not miss a beat. “The Wrath of Khan” is a straight up revenge story. “Aliens” or “Jurassic Park” could be told with lions and tigers standing in for aliens or dinosaurs.
So, what’re we talking about? Both kinds of movie?
Where to begin? Check out the Blade Runner FAQ (section 11) for a comprehensive list of plot holes, technical problems, and continuity errors. Mind you, these don’t manifestly diminish the film. Casablanca is a similiarly flawed film–what about those “Letters of Transit” that everyone is so excited about but don’t really help Elsa and Victor escape the clutches of Colonel Strasser in the end–and yet is deservedly held in high regard by both critics and the viewing public. Blade Runner works despite–and in some ways, perhaps because of–its flaws and thin plot. It’s not a neat, self-contained little viewing experience; it’s an absorbing, resonant film that feeds the imagination.
Oh, I agree, but the criticism could be (and on occasion has been) leveled that it diverges significantly from the source material. Never mind; the film is still great, both in a visual sense and in how it explores the philosophical ground of identity, morality, and mortality. Dick saw a working cut of it and approved of it. But if you want to be pedantic, it ain’t much like Android.
Someone mentioned Minority Report; for some reason, I just didn’t get what everybody liked about it. The critics loved it, audiences lapped it up; to me, it was a pastiche of different subgenres of film with gaping plot holes and ignoring some of the deep moral issues (such as, how could it possibly be acceptible to keep the PreCogs in virtual slavery?) The action sequences were badly out of place; just silly, really, especially the one in the Lexus factory. It had some great visual effects that didn’t really play into the film well; the “leaping from car to car” scene harkened back to the utterly silly Mission Impossible TGV sequence; as a Stainless Steel Rat film it would have worked; as a noirish/mystery/thriller it was jaring. Other than Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is a vertiable masterpiece of action-adventure, I just have been generally underwhelmed by Steven Spielburg, including his attempts at making serious films like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List; to me, he just comes off as manipulative and button-pushing, lacking in sincerity and originality. He’s what Martin Scorsese is for some reason striving to become in his post-Goodfellas oeurve.
12 Monkeys was a film I really wanted to adore; I liked it well enough, but something was just not quite…right about it. Not a bad film, certainly, and in fact it is far more intelligent than what generally passes for science fiction. That Gilliam eschewed a lot of fancy effects in favor of a character-centric plot says much for his attempt to grow as a director, but in the end, it just didn’t wow me. I can watch Brazil any day of the week, and 2001 any other day; 12 Monkeys is once a year experience. shrug
Star Wars is self-admittedly derivative; from The Hidden Fortress to The Dam Busters via The Guns of Navarone and The Lord of the Rings, it is pure pastiche with hardly a scene or character that can’t be identified from another work. This doesn’t make it any less significant–it is certainly a much better retooling of old elements than Independence Day–but I’m hard pressed to be as enthused about it as a piece of major cinema as I am something like 2001. I’d say that Lucas is skillful, but not espeically original. S’okay; he’s laughing all the way to the bank, but the subsequent sequels (save for The Empire Strikes Back, which IMHO is vastly superior and largely independent in many ways to the first movie) demonstrate that Lucas lacks originality in his vision.
I so much would like to write science fiction–real science ficiton, involving real ideas and developed characters–but I’d hate having a book or film jammed in among the Star Trek novelizations and the Schwartenegger films. On the whole, Roger Corman and Rod Sterling produced better science fictiton, albeit on a fractional budget, than George Lucas and Steven Spielberg could dream of. (It’s worthy of note that James Cameron–a director that knows how to weave compelling characters into technical and science fiction premises–cut his teeth working for Corman. Small budgets call for big ideas; conversely, large budgets seem to allow producers and directors to gloss over plot holes and technical incongruities.)
Stranger
cool.
I have this real issue with sci fi. When I was on Jeopardy, since I couldn’t get the ADs to understand what I do for a living, I mentioned interest in sf. Alex said something about scifi. I’m torn, since I object to sci fi, but I visited the Ackermansion, and really enjoyed meeting Forrest J., so I didn’t want to say anything nasty about it on national TV. It came out a mess, which they mercifully cut from the final show.
Anyhow, thanks for the nice comments.
No one has mentioned the lack of plot originality. I’ve been to writing clinics where they’ve taught Star Wars as the archetypical Hero’s Journey plot. I believe Lucas knew exactly what he was doing, and it showed that this classic plot really works if you believe in it. Lucas’ real talent was grabbing just the right bits of popular culture - no small skill.
One of the reasons the first trilogy is such a mess is that he got drawn away from this plot purity by the need to fill in all the holes and give the fans all the back story that they were expecting.
I agree with you about 12 Monkeys. I’ve read enough time travel stories so it was not nearly as original to me as it was to some. The main draw to me was that I had toured that cool prison in Philadelphia where some of it was filmed.
It’s a better time travel movie than Napoleon Dynamite???
Stranger
Nope – Forbidden Planet again. Watch the whole opening sequence, where they decelerate the ship. Thety don’t pander to the audience, and they don’t explain, but if you know science fiction, you know what’s going on. – They go to the “DC” point (Deceleration Point, although they don’t explain this) and make sure everything is battened down (“Got all your breakable gear stowed?”) before they step into stasis beams so that they don’t get turned into red jelly by the considerable deceleration forces (I wonder what audiences not clued into SF made of that? I had to explain to siomeone seeing the film for the first time that these were not transporters.)
Even a critic hostile to FP noted that it was “switched on to pulp SF conventions” – blasters, robotic laws, etc.
Forbidden Planet didn’t have th immediate impact that other films did, but that’s not the film’s fault. The market may not have been there yet. It certainly wasn’t marketed well – it was indifferently released in the spring, with not big buildup. Today it would be released at the height of the summer movie blitz, with plenty of advertising. But it had a huge impact on fans, many of whom were strongly influenced by it when they went into films (The guy whjo animated the “lightning bolt” effect when the Jawas capture R2D2 admits his debt to Josh Meador’s Monster from FP).
After FP science fiction films withdrew from universe-hopping and put out flicks about monsters, UFOs, and space travel within the solar system. Aside from the East European(!) effort Ikarie XB-1, SF didn’t go to the stars again until episodes of Twilight Zone did so – using props and effects from Forbidden Planet! Outer Limits occasionally used aliens from outside the solar system, but the humans were peculiarly system-bound. It wasn’t until Gene Roddenbery strip=-mined FP to produce Star Trek that we wen to the stars again. (The Captain, his second-in-command, and the ship’s doctor go away from the ship on contact missions, and fly around on a multi-year military mission in a saucer-shaped ship. Don’t tell me Roddenbery didn’t lift that from FP.) Of Course, Lost in Space came out about the same time, giving us galaxy-hopping humans on a saucer, but I try to put that monstrosity out of my mind.
Does one have to read the books, or know anything about the story to get into LOTR?? I’m not a big Sci-Fi fan really, but I have just heard that this is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made. EVERYONE keeps telling me “Oh you HAVE to see LOTR!!” Would I get everything? Should I read the books first?